Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

[I believe St. Jeremiah and the Forerunner received the Graces of Baptism

The Graces of Baptism which are empowered immediately

God could grant these ETERNAL Graces

I, too, believe that Mary received an abundance of Graces at the Annunciation.

However, I also believe that the Graces Mary received at the Annunciation are different from the Graces she received at her IC.

I cannot agree with your position that she received the Graces of Baptism at the Annunciation.

The Graces of Baptism are what permits us to be sinless (as I think you'll agree).

Thus, she must have received the Graces of Baptism

I am rather more sympathetic to the position of some Orthodox that she received these Graces at her birth.

What are "the Graces"?

GRACES are any and all manifestations of the Divine Energy in this created world (I'm writing that only for the benefit of our Latin brethren who might be reading our discussion, not for our Eastern and Oriental brethren who need no lessons in that definition). There are many different Graces of the same Spirit, as Scripture and the Fathers have taught us. The Graces of Baptism are those Graces which aid in attaining sinlessness. Every Grace of sinlessness has its Source in only one thing - the Holy Sacrifice of Christ. Like most other Graces, there must be a free will response to these Graces of Baptism (note: I'm not talking about Baptism, but the Graces one receives at Baptism). Grace does not make us automations.

The Graces Mary received at the Annunciation are different - these particular Graces affected her very body

WAIT A MINUTE! You were the one claiming that the IC only affected the Theotokos' soul, not her body. Are you saying that the "grace of the IC" is not connected to the grace of the Annuciation now?

Quote

SO THAT SHE WOULD BE ABLE TO BEAR THE FULLNESS OF DIVINITY. IMO, the Grace to remain a Virgin despite child-bearing and parturition was also among the Graces she received at the Annunciation.

As an aside, the Graces Mary recieved at her Dormition/Assumption are, again, different from the Graces she received at the beginning of her life, on the one hand, and at her Annunciation, on the other. The Graces Mary received at her Dormition/Assumption were the Graces of Immortality and Incorruptibility.

Unfortunately for you, your Vatican's "infallible documents" connect the IC to her immortality and incoruptibilty, as I pointed out when you tried to get the body of the Theotokos out of the IC:

In the Decree on Original Sin at the Council of Trent, the Church defined that in Baptism, mankind is "made innocent, without stain, pure...beloved sons of God."

Do you see the word "stain" in the definition, Father? Do you see the connection? "Stain" refers to the SPIRITUAL consequences of original sin, NOT the physical/tactile consequences (unless your innovative polemics are now going to claim that the Catholic Church teaches that Baptism means we can no longer die).

So when the dogma of the IC states that Mary was preserved from all STAIN of original sin, it is referring exclusively to the SPIRITUAL consequences of original sin, and is not making any reference to the physical/tactile consequences. In other words, the dogma of the IC is not claiming that the Graces Mary received at the moment of the Immaculate Conception somehow freed her from death, or physical/emotional infirmities, or bodily corruption, etc.

Your fine distinction in the IC are not found in Ineffibilus Deus. Are they a refinement?

No, just bringing out the difficulty of pinning you down for authoritative statements, and getting you to recognize the plain language of dogmatic statements (like the Magesterial Pronouncement of the Fifth Ecumenical Council: sorry, neither we nor the Vatican are the court of appeal from an Ecumenical Council), let alone the plain language of pronouncements on the IC.

Well, the "plain language" of the IC, if you want to debate it, should be interpreted according to the magisterial interpretations of the CC, not according to the whimsical interpretations of NON-Catholics, wouldn't you agree? I'm sure you would not want me to critique an EO doctrine based on my own NON-EO point of view, but rather on what the EOC herself teaches, correct?

Before I waste time on that, can we get a ruling on the "old Catholic Encyclopedia"...as magesterial documents?

And I would certainly trust the old Catholic Encyclopedia to explain a dogma of the Catholic Church before I waste time listening to a non-Catholic interpret it.

potuit, decuit ergo fecit:

Quote

Proof from reason [sic]There is an incongruity in the supposition that the flesh, from which the flesh of the Son of God was to be formed, should ever have belonged to one who was the slave of that arch-enemy, whose power He came on earth to destroy. Hence the axiom of Pseudo-Anselmus (Eadmer) developed by Duns Scotus, Decuit, potuit, ergo fecit, it was becoming that the Mother of the Redeemer should have been free from the power of sin and from the first moment of her existence; God could give her this privilege, therefore He gave it to her...Scotus says that "the perfect Mediator must, in some one case, have done the work of mediation most perfectly, which would not be unless there was some one person at least, in whose regard the wrath of God was anticipated and not merely appeased."

And again, then there's that problem of the "full of grace" proof text:

Quote

The Immaculate Conception

490 To become the mother of the Saviour, Mary "was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role."132 The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as "full of grace".133 In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God's grace.

491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God,134 was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.

This only works if, as is claimed over and over by IC apologists, that

Quote

Luke 1:28 The salutation of the angel Gabriel -- chaire kecharitomene, Hail, full of grace (Luke 1:28) indicates a unique abundance of grace, a supernatural, godlike state of soul, which finds its explanation only in the Immaculate Conception of Mary.Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

If any grace was withheld, than the all-or-nothing argument of the eisogesis of the IC into Luke 1:28 falls apart.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The translation has to do with the actual tense here. The tanslation is in fact justified. I will elaborate later.

Quote

Proof from Scripture [sic]Luke 1:28 The salutation of the angel Gabriel -- chaire kecharitomene, Hail, full of grace (Luke 1:28) indicates a unique abundance of grace, a supernatural, godlike state of soul, which finds its explanation only in the Immaculate Conception of Mary.Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

It was not necessary for Christ in the sense that he needed it for himself but necessary so that he might grant life giving ability to water in baptism.

yes, becoming sin for us Who knew no sin. That doesn't explain the Theotokos' situation.

Quote

Don't know. It couldn't hurt. Do we of the East not state that theosis continues forever, grace following upon grace.

I know WE do. I've gotten conflicting reports from those who sailing West up the Tiber.

Quote

I believe both involve ontological change, or rather both are names for the same thing.

Then the baptized are not a new creation? Gal. 3:27, 6:15, 2 Cor. 5:17, Col. 3:11.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

WAIT A MINUTE! You were the one claiming that the IC only affected the Theotokos' soul, not her body. Are you saying that the "grace of the IC" is not connected to the grace of the Annuciation now?

Where in the world did you get "they are not connected" from my statement that "the Graces are different." OBVIOUSLY, they are connected. Her free-will response to the Graces of sinlessness PRIOR to the Annunciation were the cause of her being given the Graces she received AT the Annunciation.

Quote

Unfortunately for you, your Vatican's "infallible documents" connect the IC to her immortality and incoruptibilty, as I pointed out when you tried to get the body of the Theotokos out of the IC:

Sorry, you'll have to point out to all of us where the dogma of the IC claims Mary did not die.

Quote

Btw, since:

I don't know what your point is in the text you provided following this clause.

Quote

And again, then there's that problem of the "full of grace" proof text:

You'll have to take that one up with a Latin. I, as an Oriental, have never used that verse as a prooftext, because I know that the original Greek text does not actually mean "FULL of Grace" (as several of us have already discussed here - pay attention, please). All it means is that she has ALREADY been Graced abundantly at some time in the past. My own understanding is consistent with what I have stated already regarding the distinction between the Graces she received at her Annunciation, on the one hand, and the Graces she received at her IC, on the other.

The very quote you give proves my point:

Quote

The Immaculate Conception

490 To become the mother of the Saviour, Mary "was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role."132 The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as "full of grace".133 In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God's grace.

491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God,134 was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.

As you will notice, it states exactly what I stated - that the Graces she received BEFORE the Annunciation prepared her for what is to come AT the Annunciation. It states PRECISELY that the Graces she received BEFORE the Annunciation were for the purpose of being able to respond positively to the Angel's message. THAT'S IT! It does NOT say, contrary to your exaggerated opinion, that the IC prepared her to give birth to Christ.

Quote

This only works if, as is claimed over and over by IC apologists, that

I don't know what you're pulling out of the hat now, but it's obvious you're stretching the intent of the dogma --- ONCE AGAIN.

Then why does St. Luke say ἐπελεύσεται...ἐπισκιάσει, in the future "will come on you....will overshadow you?" Much is made over the tense of κεχαριτωμένη "full of grace,"

Father Deacon Lance is an EASTERN Catholic. I'm sure he understands the ACTUAL meaning of the term often translated as "Full of Grace." Given that, I think he will agree that receiving whatever Graces Mary received at her IC does not preclude receiving other Graces at the Annunciation.

Quote

Quote

Don't know. It couldn't hurt. Do we of the East not state that theosis continues forever, grace following upon grace.

I know WE do. I've gotten conflicting reports from those who sailing West up the Tiber.

They're not conflicting. They are different expressions of the SAME Faith.

Quote

Quote

I believe both involve ontological change, or rather both are names for the same thing.

Then the baptized are not a new creation? Gal. 3:27, 6:15, 2 Cor. 5:17, Col. 3:11.

He already stated they are the SAME term that involve ontological change. Why are you asking this question?

I am still intrigued by the unexpected appearance of the term "the Graces" repeated and repeated in your last couple of messages. I have never seen you use it before and am curious what is behind its sudden appearance.

Are you about to correct the Hail Mary to "Hail Mary, full of the Graces..."? Have the Latin translators made a mistake by using the singular?

I am still intrigued by the unexpected appearance of the term "the Graces" repeated and repeated in your last couple of messages. I have never seen you use it before and am curious what is behind its sudden appearance.

Are you about to correct the Hail Mary to "Hail Mary, full of the Graces..."? Have the Latin translators made a mistake by using the singular?

When I use the term "Grace," I would use it in a number of different ways: Divine Energy, Divine action, the effect of a divine action, the Holy Spirit, or any benefit from God.

When I use the term "Graces," I would likewise use it in a number of different ways: Divine Energies, Divine actions, effects of a divine action, or benefits from God.

Whichever one you think fits according to the context of the phrase is probably what I was thinking of when I used the term.

Interestingly (well, to me anyway) if we take Grace to mean the Holy Spirit, it would fit perfectly with the phrase "full of Grace." It would mean, as Father Deacon Lance pointed out, that Mary was full of the Holy Spirit. As you already know, however, being full of the Holy Spirit does not mean being full of all the Graces that the Holy Spirit can give, according to St. Paul. The Holy Spirit gives Grace/Graces according to His purpose. As the quote from the Apostolic Constitution of the dogma of the IC (quoted by brother Isa) indicates, "Mary 'was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role.'" Mary did not receive the gifts/Graces of prophecy or leadership or healing or infallibility, etc. She received particular graces from the moment of her existence suited for her role to be the Mother of God for the specific purpose, as the Apostolic Constitution states, of enabling her to respond to the message of the angel in a positive manner.

I continue to follow this intriguing discussion. I believe I am growing to accept the Orthodox position on this very weighty matter. Although I continue to marvel at the mystery of Our Lady I feel I don't believe we need to adhere to the western doctrines. Thank you all for participating in this pressing matter.

Peace and God Bless.

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

I continue to follow this intriguing discussion. I believe I am growing to accept the Orthodox position on this very weighty matter. Although I continue to marvel at the mystery of Our Lady I feel I don't believe we need to adhere to the western doctrines. Thank you all for participating in this pressing matter.

Peace and God Bless.

What "western doctrines" are you talking about? The teaching of the IC was originally an Eastern teaching that the West gradually accepted. There is nothing about it particularly Western except the language of the dogma. But the teaching itself (not its dogmatic formulation) is primordially Eastern.

Put another way, which Eastern position are you accepting? 1) Mary received Graces only at her annunciation, and she was sinless beforehand by the use of her own free will. That is riddled with Pelagianism.

2) Mary received Graces at her birth. This would be free of any taint of Pelagianism. The problem with this one is that there is NO patristic witness to Mary having an Immaculate birth.

3) Mary received Graces before her birth, but after her conception. This would be the most sensible non-Catholic position, since though there is NO direct patristic support for it, it can nevertheless be inferred from the patristic prooftexts used for the IC - namely, explicit statements by many Western and Eastern Fathers (mostly Eastern) that Mary was formed or created by God without stain. The only problem with this position is that a better one exists - i.e., the teaching of the IC (because Mary was formed by God from the first moment of her existence).

4) The teaching of the IC is acceptable but not necessary (i.e., the teaching should not be a dogma, but remain a theologoumenon). This position would actually not put you outside the pale of Catholicism, since the censure of the dogma is only against those who disbelieve it, not against those who believe it, but not as a dogma.

I continue to follow this intriguing discussion. I believe I am growing to accept the Orthodox position on this very weighty matter. Although I continue to marvel at the mystery of Our Lady I feel I don't believe we need to adhere to the western doctrines. Thank you all for participating in this pressing matter.

Peace and God Bless.

What "western doctrines" are you talking about? The teaching of the IC was originally an Eastern teaching that the West gradually accepted. There is nothing about it particularly Western except the language of the dogma. But the teaching itself (not its dogmatic formulation) is primordially Eastern.

Put another way, which Eastern position are you accepting? 1) Mary received Graces only at her annunciation, and she was sinless beforehand by the use of her own free will. That is riddled with Pelagianism.

Grace and Peace my dear brother Marduk

Please don't take my continuation in my prolonged journey toward Eastern Orthodoxy to be an attack on your journey toward the Patriarch of Rome. I have nothing but deep affection toward you and the many faith-filled followers of Christ who find themselves, through deep thought and reflection, to be in communion with that ancient see but please understand that I weep, as recently as this morning over my failure to enter into communion and the full life of the Faith of my Eastern Brothers and Sisters. It is beyond rational argument, it is beyond filial ties, it is simply beyond the narrowly defined Western Doctrines within the Roman Church of our day. There simply must be 'room' for the 'fullness' of the Faith and it's 'mystery' and these Western Doctrines 'limit' that 'fullness', in my most humble opinion. It is this opinion, hand in hand, with my own deep seated affection for the Eastern Church that continues to draw me eastward.

It is not a matter of a flaw in rational argumentation but a matter of a lack of room for the fullness of the faith with me.

Quote

2) Mary received Graces at her birth. This would be free of any taint of Pelagianism. The problem with this one is that there is NO patristic witness to Mary having an Immaculate birth.

3) Mary received Graces before her birth, but after her conception. This would be the most sensible non-Catholic position, since though there is NO direct patristic support for it, it can nevertheless be inferred from the patristic prooftexts used for the IC - namely, explicit statements by many Western and Eastern Fathers (mostly Eastern) that Mary was formed or created by God without stain. The only problem with this position is that a better one exists - i.e., the teaching of the IC (because Mary was formed by God from the first moment of her existence).

4) The teaching of the IC is acceptable but not necessary (i.e., the teaching should not be a dogma, but remain a theologoumenon). This position would actually not put you outside the pale of Catholicism, since the censure of the dogma is only against those who disbelieve it, not against those who believe it, but not as a dogma.

Well, may the Holy Spirit guide you on your faith journey.

Blessings,Marduk

Personally, I claim no clarity in these details about our Most Blessed Mother. I continue to stand in awe before the mystery. I hold nothing personally against those who hold to some kind of infantile en-grace-ment of Mary. I simply don't believe it most be a doctrine.

I continue to hold you in deep respect and affection. Peace and God Bless.

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

About Mary`s grace/graces let`s not interpret the angel salute without the context of the verse30(luke 1:30) two verses after the greeting of the angel it says : "you have found grace in front of God" . Let`s go back and remmeber in Gen 6:8 : "and Noah found grace in front of God" , Acts 7:45-46 : "David found grace in before(in front of) God.As we look back in the OT , the Holy Spirit descended upon some personalities but it didn`t remain on them it was the righteouss from the Law , as someone mention a page ago.It was the divine help and assistance from God , but again with the risk of repeating myself it did not remain on them. There were moments when the Holy Spirit work trough their righteouss , even the prophets , things of the moment. The NT and the baptise of Jesus it tells us : and the Holy Spirit descended from the sky like a dove and remain on Him.My opinion about the term "full of grace" is that Mary benefited of some virtues of the Holy Spirit , but didn`t have the Holy Spirit , and the context "grace in front of God" and "blessed between women" makes me believe that she was elected between the women , because of her virtues and life , because of her way of life . Some pages ago I reflected some of the Virgin`s virtues : faithfullness , fear and devotion to God , faith , humility , meekness , values wich reflected from the gospel , many much more.She was found more virtuos than other women and had found favour before God.I think she was gracefull because of her qualities . I`m not of the opinion she was IC , extempt from any stain of the Ancestral Sin , I am of the opinion she inherited the Ancestral Sin, but she had a clean devoted life to God hence she was called favoured before God ,found grace in front of Godhence she was called full of grace, because of her qualities.But she was remmited of the stain of the Ancestral Sin , by giving birth to Jesus , the Water who washes all our sins.The Holy Spirit descended on her as on anyone at the Pentecost.The Scripture says clearly , the Holy Spirit didn`t descended because the Son of man was not yet praised.I`m against the idea that Salvation is outside of time .Christ`s Salvation was by His entering into time and history.As we know even the just of the OT were in Hades. Jesus said in John 3 : No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

I'm happy you've finally understood my position on Ancestral (or, if you prefer, Original) Sin. I am sincerely looking forward that thread to be opened, since the last discussions on Pelagianism have interested me. I'm not a theologian, of course, but I'd like to meditate the mystery of sin with you and our respective brethrens in faith.

In Christ, Alex

Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")

Then why does St. Luke say ἐπελεύσεται...ἐπισκιάσει, in the future "will come on you....will overshadow you?" Much is made over the tense of κεχαριτωμένη "full of grace,"

Father Deacon Lance is an EASTERN Catholic.

What does that have to do with anything? He evidently believes in the IC, so I see no reason to make a distinction between him or any other follower of Pope Pius IX.

Quote

I'm sure he understands the ACTUAL meaning of the term often translated as "Full of Grace."

Somehow I recall him being Ukrainian. That's would be Greek to him, unless he has studied Greek.

Quote

Given that, I think he will agree that receiving whatever Graces Mary received at her IC does not preclude receiving other Graces at the Annunciation.

But that's your problem with Ineffibilis Deus using the chapter in question as proof text of the IC: if there were other graces to be received, then Luke 1:28 can't be said to demand the IC because κεχαριτωμένη means "all divine graces."

Quote

Quote

Quote

Don't know. It couldn't hurt. Do we of the East not state that theosis continues forever, grace following upon grace.

I know WE do. I've gotten conflicting reports from those who sailing West up the Tiber.

They're not conflicting. They are different expressions of the SAME Faith.

Saying white is black just makes things gray.

Quote

Quote

Quote

I believe both involve ontological change, or rather both are names for the same thing.

Then the baptized are not a new creation? Gal. 3:27, 6:15, 2 Cor. 5:17, Col. 3:11.

He already stated they are the SAME term that involve ontological change. Why are you asking this question?

Because the grace we received on bended knee this morning was not the same we received at baptism. They are NOT the SAME.

« Last Edit: June 07, 2009, 03:30:35 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Unfortunately for you, your Vatican's "infallible documents" connect the IC to her immortality and incoruptibilty, as I pointed out when you tried to get the body of the Theotokos out of the IC

Must your comments towards Catholic doctrine always be condescending? They are just like the Protestants, always accusing the pope (and the Vatican) of claiming impeccability. I'd like to know how you came to the conclusion that ALL Vatican documents are infallible.

Logged

There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga

In the Decree on Original Sin at the Council of Trent, the Church defined that in Baptism, mankind is "made innocent, without stain, pure...beloved sons of God."

Do you see the word "stain" in the definition, Father? Do you see the connection? "Stain" refers to the SPIRITUAL consequences of original sin, NOT the physical/tactile consequences (unless your innovative polemics are now going to claim that the Catholic Church teaches that Baptism means we can no longer die).

So when the dogma of the IC states that Mary was preserved from all STAIN of original sin, it is referring exclusively to the SPIRITUAL consequences of original sin, and is not making any reference to the physical/tactile consequences. In other words, the dogma of the IC is not claiming that the Graces Mary received at the moment of the Immaculate Conception somehow freed her from death, or physical/emotional infirmities, or bodily corruption, etc.

Your fine distinction in the IC are not found in Ineffibilus Deus. Are they a refinement?

Quote

OBVIOUSLY, they are connected.

Then why did she die, since she was free of original sin?

Quote

Her free-will response to the Graces of sinlessness PRIOR to the Annunciation were the cause of her being given the Graces she received AT the Annunciation.

Since, according to the IC, she was created full of the graces of sinlessness since the first moment of her existence, when did she have the time to exercise that free-will?

Quote

Quote

Unfortunately for you, your Vatican's "infallible documents" connect the IC to her immortality and incoruptibilty, as I pointed out when you tried to get the body of the Theotokos out of the IC:

Sorry, you'll have to point out to all of us where the dogma of the IC claims Mary did not die.

Ah, a mere thousand years ago to a few centuries we could have laughed together, even in the West, and challenged anyone to show all of us where the dogma of the Incarnation claims that Mary did not have original sin. Alas! no more.

We've discussed your Immortalists (those followers of the Vatican who believe the Theotokos did not die),eg.:

Tying the IC into the ideas about Penance, it is strange that she is held to bear the punishment for sin she was absolved from conception and which she did not commit. Of course, we also have to admit the Immortalists in the Vatican: due to the vague wording of the Munificentissimus Deus, there are those who claim that she did not die. At least they are consistent.

Which is more than I can say with all this Back to the Future Mariology. It's not Proto-Evangelion, it's pre-quel Gospel. A solution to a non-existent problem.

Quote

Quote

Btw, since:

I don't know what your point is in the text you provided following this clause.

LOL. No, I'm sure you don't.

I called you on your novel interpretation of the IC only involving her soul. I posted the "magisterial" (allegedly "infallible") documents that said otherwise. You claimed you would believe the ol' "Catholic Encyclopedia" over a "non-Catholic." So I posted from the CE which also called you on your novel interpretation.

No, just bringing out the difficulty of pinning you down for authoritative statements, and getting you to recognize the plain language of dogmatic statements (like the Magesterial Pronouncement of the Fifth Ecumenical Council: sorry, neither we nor the Vatican are the court of appeal from an Ecumenical Council), let alone the plain language of pronouncements on the IC.

Well, the "plain language" of the IC, if you want to debate it, should be interpreted according to the magisterial interpretations of the CC, not according to the whimsical interpretations of NON-Catholics, wouldn't you agree? I'm sure you would not want me to critique an EO doctrine based on my own NON-EO point of view, but rather on what the EOC herself teaches, correct?

Before I waste time on that, can we get a ruling on the "old Catholic Encyclopedia"...as magesterial documents?

And I would certainly trust the old Catholic Encyclopedia to explain a dogma of the Catholic Church before I waste time listening to a non-Catholic interpret it.

potuit, decuit ergo fecit:

Quote

Proof from reason [sic]There is an incongruity in the supposition that the flesh, from which the flesh of the Son of God was to be formed, should ever have belonged to one who was the slave of that arch-enemy, whose power He came on earth to destroy. Hence the axiom of Pseudo-Anselmus (Eadmer) developed by Duns Scotus, Decuit, potuit, ergo fecit, it was becoming that the Mother of the Redeemer should have been free from the power of sin and from the first moment of her existence; God could give her this privilege, therefore He gave it to her...Scotus says that "the perfect Mediator must, in some one case, have done the work of mediation most perfectly, which would not be unless there was some one person at least, in whose regard the wrath of God was anticipated and not merely appeased."

And again, then there's that problem of the "full of grace" proof text:

You'll have to take that one up with a Latin.

How about you take it up with Pope Pius IX?

Quote

I, as an Oriental, have never used that verse as a prooftext, because I know that the original Greek text does not actually mean "FULL of Grace" (as several of us have already discussed here - pay attention, please).

Better get to the original Latin of Ineffibilis Deus:

Quote

THE ANNUNCIATION

When the Fathers and writers of the Church meditated on the fact that the most Blessed Virgin was, in the name and by order of God himself, proclaimed full of grace[22] by the Angel Gabriel when he announced her most sublime dignity of Mother of God, they thought that this singular and solemn salutation, never heard before, showed that the Mother of God is the seat of all divine graces and is adorned with all gifts of the Holy Spirit. To them Mary is an almost infinite treasury, an inexhaustible abyss of these gifts, to such an extent that she was never subject to the curse and was, together with her Son, the only partaker of perpetual benediction.

All it means is that she has ALREADY been Graced abundantly at some time in the past. My own understanding is consistent with what I have stated already regarding the distinction between the Graces she received at her Annunciation, on the one hand, and the Graces she received at her IC, on the other.

But again, you can't argue it means all graces, and therefore the IC is necessarily implied, and then claim that other, different graces aren't included. You quantifying your absolute claim is an oxymoron.

Quote

The very quote you give proves my point:

Quote

The Immaculate Conception

490 To become the mother of the Saviour, Mary "was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role."132 The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as "full of grace".133 In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God's grace.

491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God,134 was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.

As you will notice, it states exactly what I stated - that the Graces she received BEFORE the Annunciation prepared her for what is to come AT the Annunciation. It states PRECISELY that the Graces she received BEFORE the Annunciation were for the purpose of being able to respond positively to the Angel's message. THAT'S IT! It does NOT say, contrary to your exaggerated opinion, that the IC prepared her to give birth to Christ.

Quote

This only works if, as is claimed over and over by IC apologists, that

I don't know what you're pulling out of the hat now, but it's obvious you're stretching the intent of the dogma --- ONCE AGAIN.

Taking an absurdity to its logical conclusion is how it is disproved ad absurdum.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Unfortunately for you, your Vatican's "infallible documents" connect the IC to her immortality and incoruptibilty, as I pointed out when you tried to get the body of the Theotokos out of the IC

Must your comments towards Catholic doctrine always be condescending? They are just like the Protestants, always accusing the pope (and the Vatican) of claiming impeccability. I'd like to know how you came to the conclusion that ALL Vatican documents are infallible.

...Your fine distinction in the IC are not found in Ineffibilus Deus. Are they a refinement?...

And then, there is the problem of squaring your read of the IC with Munificentissimus Deus:...

I am quoting two documents which the VATICAN and its followers DO claim are infallible. Of course, we then get the argument that not all the proclamation is infallible, blah, blah, blah, but one can only do so much.

« Last Edit: June 07, 2009, 04:20:45 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

So she was good enough for Christ but not the Holy Spirit before her baptism?

The sayings of the prophets are now being fulfilled: the holy mountain is planted in the womb, the divine ladder is set up, the throne of the great king is ready, the God-inspired city is being adorned. The Unburnable bush is beginning to bud forth, and the treasure house of grace is overflowing. It is spreading over the rivers of unfruitfulness of the God-wise Anne whom we glorify in faith. (3rd Stichon of Vespers for the Conception of the Theotokos by St. Anne)

Very nice, and lovely.

Someone was going to post the full office of this Feast, but I haven't seen it (I've seen it in the Melkite service book, the one that drops St. Gregory Palamas from the Triodion).

So, if we compare the texts from the Conception of St. Anne, how would they differ from those of the Annuciation? The Birth of the Thetokos? The Entry of the Theotokos into the Temple? (the latter one especially, as why would that be important if she was already prepared at her conception?).

No stain of IC here.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

[ I'd like to know how you came to the conclusion that ALL Vatican documents are infallible.

Whether they qualify as technically infallible or not by reason of the "we believe, state, proclaim and define... to the whole Church", papal statements still cannot not be denied by Catholics.

There is a requirement to give assent to the teachings of the Pope, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra. I find that quite interesting. I know that modern Catholics will "smooth" that out by saying, "But of course, when he is speaking with the mind of the Church he speaks infallibly."

"This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.” ~Dogmatic Constitution on the Church #25

Now Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, is one of the principal documents of the Second Vatican Council. The Constitution was promulgated by Pope Paul VI on November 21, 1964, following approval by the assembled bishops by a vote of 2,151 to 5.

Whether one posits infallibility in Ecumenical Councils or Popes or both, this document is ungainsayable on all counts, and the Pope was most certainly exercising his magisterial authority. In other words, Catholics must give assent of mind and will to all papal teachings.

[ I'd like to know how you came to the conclusion that ALL Vatican documents are infallible.

Whether they qualify as technically infallible or not by reason of the "we believe, state, proclaim and define... to the whole Church", papal statements still cannot not be denied by Catholics.

There is a requirement to give assent to the teachings of the Pope, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra. I find that quite interesting. I know that modern Catholics will "smooth" that out by saying, "But of course, when he is speaking with the mind of the Church he speaks infallibly."

"This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.” ~Dogmatic Constitution on the Church #25

Now Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, is one of the principal documents of the Second Vatican Council. The Constitution was promulgated by Pope Paul VI on November 21, 1964, following approval by the assembled bishops by a vote of 2,151 to 5.

Whether one posits infallibility in Ecumenical Councils or Popes or both, this document is ungainsayable on all counts, and the Pope was most certainly exercising his magisterial authority. In other words, Catholics must give assent of mind and will to all papal teachings.

Which of course raises the issue: what's the difference between an infallible teaching one must give assent to and a fallible teaching one must give aseent to.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Unfortunately for you, your Vatican's "infallible documents" connect the IC to her immortality and incoruptibilty, as I pointed out when you tried to get the body of the Theotokos out of the IC

Must your comments towards Catholic doctrine always be condescending? They are just like the Protestants, always accusing the pope (and the Vatican) of claiming impeccability. I'd like to know how you came to the conclusion that ALL Vatican documents are infallible.

As you pointed out, it is not proper to say "all Vatican documents are infallible." But I think your statement might mislead a few. It is not "documents" that are infallible, but teachings. As every Catholic knows (or should know), infallibility refers only to the specific teaching that is being defined. It does not apply to the preamble (the apostolic constitution) that accompanies the teaching. However, the apostolic consitution is indeed considered magisterial and authoritative. It's something non-Catholics (and probably a few Catholics) can't understand, so, as you can see here, they run around in circles in their arguments, because they seek to impose their non-Catholic perceptions on Catholic teaching.

An example here would be this issue of "full of grace" being brought up by brother Isa. He makes a big dieal about it being contained in an apostolic constitution, but he doesn't realize that the term "full of grace" here is not being defined, but rather being used somewhat in a colloquial manner, since "full of grace" is often the translation that people are used to.

Every "response" you have brought up in your several recent posts has already been fully addressed before in this thread, to which no non-Catholic has offered any responses previously. I recommend you reread the thread to refresh your memory. I'm not going to respond to your "reponses" here, since they have already been sufficiently addressed earlier in the thread. The statements in your most recent posts are not "responses" at all, but a demagogic way of making readers think you made a point (when in fact those points have already been dealt with). Your method is obvious - 1) you make a misleading claim; 2) you get refuted; 3) You don't respond; 4) you think up of another misleading claim; 5) you get refuted; 6) you somehow connect this newly refuted misleading claim to a prior misleading claim; 7) You offer the prior misleading claim that has been refuted as a "response" to the more current misleading claim that has also been refuted; repeat from step #1.

I will make one comment about the Greek often translated as "full of Grace." No Eastern or Oriental Catholic here (AFAIK) has ever claimed that the Greek term means "all divine graces." I certainly haven't. Not even the apostolic constitution you quoted makes that claim (i.e., though it uses the term "full of grace," nowhere does it claim that the term is equivalent to your exaggerated interpretation). So I don't know how you think your "all divine graces" argument has any validity. Your attempting a reductio ad absurdum argument, but the only thing shown to be absurd here is your credibility.

Unfortunately for you, your Vatican's "infallible documents" connect the IC to her immortality and incoruptibilty, as I pointed out when you tried to get the body of the Theotokos out of the IC

Must your comments towards Catholic doctrine always be condescending? They are just like the Protestants, always accusing the pope (and the Vatican) of claiming impeccability. I'd like to know how you came to the conclusion that ALL Vatican documents are infallible.

As you pointed out, it is not proper to say "all Vatican documents are infallible." But I think your statement might mislead a few. It is not "documents" that are infallible, but teachings.

Just when we thought things couldn't be made more slippery....

Quote

As every Catholic knows (or should know), infallibility refers only to the specific teaching that is being defined. It does not apply to the preamble (the apostolic constitution) that accompanies the teaching.

That's nice. Now explain how, under Lumen Gentium, as Fr. Ambrose posted, that makes a difference.

Not every "Catholic knows" that it is not infallible, but according to Lumen Gentium, they should assent to it.

Quote

However, the apostolic consitution is indeed considered magisterial and authoritative. It's something non-Catholics (and probably a few Catholics) can't understand, so, as you can see here, they run around in circles in their arguments, because they seek to impose their non-Catholic perceptions on Catholic teaching.

Quote

An example here would be this issue of "full of grace" being brought up by brother Isa. He makes a big dieal about it being contained in an apostolic constitution, but he doesn't realize that the term "full of grace" here is not being defined, but rather being used somewhat in a colloquial manner, since "full of grace" is often the translation that people are used to.

Ineffibilis Deus is hardly a colloquial document: for one thing, there hasn't been colloquial Latin for quite some time.

Here's the Latin of the part I have repeatedly refered to, since you say "translation" is the problem.

When the Fathers and writers of the Church meditated on the fact that the most Blessed Virgin was, in the name and by order of God himself, proclaimed full of grace[22] by the Angel Gabriel when he announced her most sublime dignity of Mother of God, they thought that this singular and solemn salutation, never heard before, showed that the Mother of God is the seat of all divine graces and is adorned with all gifts of the Holy Spirit. To them Mary is an almost infinite treasury, an inexhaustible abyss of these gifts, to such an extent that she was never subject to the curse and was, together with her Son, the only partaker of perpetual benediction. Hence she was worthy to hear Elizabeth, inspired by the Holy Spirit, exclaim: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb."[23]

Close enough at an attempt to define the phrase. That it fails, not withstanding scrutiny, doesn't change that.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Oh, one last thing. You and Father Ambrose are fond of claiming that I "play word games." Of course, TYPICALLY, you two NEVER explain how I've done that.

Unless you or anyone else has anything actually new to offer (that has not already been addressed and/or refuted), then I think we can all agree that, even if you disagree with the teaching of the IC, it is nevertheless NOT a heresy that can be used as a cause for separation (which has ever been my only point in this thread).

One last thing, though - I will look over that long post you had given that I mentioned earlier. If there is anything in it that is a NEW argument (i.e., has not already been addressed and/or refuted), then I'll offer a response by next Sunday.

Every "response" you have brought up in your several recent posts has already been fully addressed before in this thread, to which no non-Catholic has offered any responses previously.

Yes, so you continue to assert.

Quote

I recommend you reread the thread to refresh your memory.

My memory is quite fine. How much irretrievable time of my life do you think I'll spend on double checking that?

Quote

I'm not going to respond to your "reponses" here, since they have already been sufficiently addressed earlier in the thread.

The readers shall judge that.

Quote

The statements in your most recent posts are not "responses" at all, but a demagogic way of making readers think you made a point (when in fact those points have already been dealt with).

I'll just pick a point at rander: has any on your side addressed the words of your saint, Maximillian Kolbe on the theology of the "Immaculata," in particular on the Holy Spirit as being the uncreated Immaculate Conception?

Quote

Your method is obvious - 1) you make a misleading claim;

I quote your authorities and sources (rather than making up as I go along ), post links. The readers can go and check out any of these "misleading" claims.

Reminds me of a response on CAF of a thread "False Decretals claim Pope has universal jurisdication." Reader posted in response: "Of course they do. That's why they are FALSE. Any rabbit knows that."

Quote

2) you get refuted;

no, we get a lot of gobbledy gook without substantiation by even the Vatican's authorities: case in point, your claim that the IC only concerned the Theotokos' soul.

Quote

3) You don't respond;

My life does have other demands. Pointing out the inconsistencies of Latin theology I'm afraid is a low priority. As respond as often as possible.

Quote

4) you think up of another misleading claim;

The Kolbe and Miravalle problems, the problems with the death of the Theotokos etc. I've posted from the very beginning. They have never been addressed or otherwise disposed of.

7) You offer the prior misleading claim that has been refuted as a "response" to the more current misleading claim that has also been refuted; repeat from step #1.

Quote

I will make one comment about the Greek often translated as "full of Grace." No Eastern or Oriental Catholic here (AFAIK) has ever claimed that the Greek term means "all divine graces."

The Latins have, and do. And they are running your show. For one thing, no one in the East dreamed the IC up. It's a creation of the Latin West, the Latin Far West (England) to be precise.

Quote

I certainly haven't. Not even the apostolic constitution you quoted makes that claim (i.e., though it uses the term "full of grace," nowhere does it claim that the term is equivalent to your exaggerated interpretation).

Your attempting a reductio ad absurdum argument, but the only thing shown to be absurd here is your credibility.

Just keep repeating that, and it will make it so.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

One can quote documents. One cannot quote "teachings." I guess that is how in your own mind your own teaching of the IC involving only the Theotokos' soul passes muster.

Quote

Unless you or anyone else has anything actually new to offer (that has not already been addressed and/or refuted),

Or ignored, like Kolbe and Miravalle.

Quote

then I think we can all agree that, even if you disagree with the teaching of the IC, it is nevertheless NOT a heresy

As the Patriarchs wrote in 1894:

Quote

And indeed for the holy purpose of union, the Eastern orthodox and catholic Church of Christ is ready heartily to accept all that which both the Eastern and Western Churches unanimously professed before the ninth century, if she has perchance perverted or does not hold it. And if the Westerns prove from the teaching of the holy Fathers and the divinely assembled Ecumenical Councils that the then orthodox Roman Church, which was throughout the West, even before the ninth century read the Creed with the addition, or used unleavened bread, or accepted the doctrine of a purgatorial fire, or sprinkling instead of baptism, or the immaculate conception of the ever-Virgin, or the temporal power, or the infallibility and absolutism of the Bishop of Rome, we have no more to say. But if, on the contrary, it is plainly demonstrated, as those of the Latins themselves, who love the truth, also acknowledge, that the Eastern and orthodox catholic Church of Christ holds fast the anciently transmitted doctrines which were at that time professed in common both in the East and the West, and that the Western Church perverted them by divers innovations, then it is clear, even to children, that the more natural way to union is the return of the Western Church to the ancient doctrinal and administrative condition of things; for the faith does not change in any way with time or circumstances, but remains the same always and everywhere, for 'there is one body and one Spirit,' it is said, 'even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."

The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils teaches that the supernatural incarnation of the only-begotten Son and Word of God, of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, is alone pure and immaculate; but the Papal Church scarcely forty years ago again made an innovation by laying down a novel dogma concerning the immaculate conception of the Mother of God and ever-Virgin Mary, which was unknown to the ancient Church (and strongly opposed at different times even by the more distinguished among the papal theologians).

that can be used as a cause for separation (which has ever been my only point in this thread).

And we have 20 pages disproving it.

Sorry, can't join you in the "union" shuffle. I have to look differences in the face rather than overlook them when they pertain to the Faith. I join the Patriarchs (and the Fathers) in that:

Quote

XX. In vain, therefore, does the Bishop of Rome send us to the sources that we may seek diligently for what our forefathers believed and what the first period of Christianity delivered to us. In these sources we, the orthodox, find the old and divinely-transmitted doctrines, to which we carefully hold fast to the present time, and nowhere do we find the innovations which later times of empty mindedness brought forth in the West, and which the Papal Church having adopted retains till this very day. The orthodox Eastern Church then justly glories in Christ as being the Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils and of the first nine centuries of Christianity, and therefore the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ, 'the pillar and ground of the truth'; [25] but the present Roman Church is the Church of innovations, of the falsification of the writings of the Church Fathers, and of the misinterpretation of the Holy Scripture and of the decrees of the holy councils, for which she has reasonably and justly been disowned, and is still disowned, so far as she remains in her error. 'For better is a praiseworthy war than a peace which separates from God,' as Gregory of Nazianzus also says.

XXI. Such are, briefly, the serious and arbitrary innovations concerning the faith and the administrative constitution of the Church, which the Papal Church has introduced and which, it is evident, the Papal Encyclical purposely passes over in silence. These innovations, which have reference to essential points of the faith and of the administrative system of the Church, and which are manifestly opposed to the ecclesiastical condition of the first nine centuries, make the longed-for union of the Churches impossible: and every pious and orthodox heart is filled with inexpressible sorrow on seeing the Papal Church disdainfully persisting in them, and not in the least contributing to the sacred purpose of union by rejecting those heretical innovations and coming back to the ancient condition of the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ, of which she also at that time formed a part.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

That's nice. Now explain how, under Lumen Gentium, as Fr. Ambrose posted, that makes a difference.

Not every "Catholic knows" that it is not infallible, but according to Lumen Gentium, they should assent to it.

NOTE: this has already been addressed earlier to brother Mickey just a couple of weeks ago. But, truth to tell, I'm not sure if it was in this thread, or in another one, so I will repeat the explanation here. "Religious assent of the mind and will" is, according to the Catholic understanding, different from an "assent of Faith." "Assent of Faith" - a technical term that every professional Catholic theologian understands - has a different object than "religious assent." "Assent of Faith" has as its object, infallible teaching or doctrine. "Assent of Faith" is tantamount to believing something as if God himself were before us telling us "you must believe this" (that's my admittedly non-technical explanation of a technical term ).

On the other hand, "religious assent" - another technical term - has, as its object, the ecclesiastical Magisterium. It is equivalent to "religious obedience" to religious authority on earth. I'll give you the example I gave to brother Mickey earlier. According to the Latin canons, a Latin Catholic is bound by "religious assent" or "religious obedience" to always confess his/her sins privately to a priest. On the other hand, an Armenian Catholic is not so bound, and has no need to give "religious assent" to the Latin canons, because according to their own Tradition, general absolution is normative during their DL. The matter that requires "assent of faith" in BOTH Traditions, on the other hand, is the Divine teaching that God has given the Church the power to forgive sins.

If a person were to be placed under censure for violating a precept that requires "religious assent," then the immediate reason for the censure would be disobedience to one's religious superior. In distinction, if a person were to be placed under censure for violating a precept that requires "assent of faith," then the immediate reason for the censure would be heresy.

Hope that helps. If you have any other questions about the matter, please ask. I know it might be a difficult concept to understand.

Quote

Ineffibilis Deus is hardly a colloquial document: for one thing, there hasn't been colloquial Latin for quite some time.

Please, brother Isa, stop misrepresenting what I say/write. I did NOT say that Ineffibelus Deus was a colloquial document. I said the use of the term "full of grace" should be regarded as a "colloquialism" because that is term is what most (if not all) Catholics are used to.

When the Fathers and writers of the Church meditated on the fact that the most Blessed Virgin was, in the name and by order of God himself, proclaimed full of grace[22] by the Angel Gabriel when he announced her most sublime dignity of Mother of God, they thought that this singular and solemn salutation, never heard before, showed that the Mother of God is the seat of all divine graces and is adorned with all gifts of the Holy Spirit. To them Mary is an almost infinite treasury, an inexhaustible abyss of these gifts, to such an extent that she was never subject to the curse and was, together with her Son, the only partaker of perpetual benediction. Hence she was worthy to hear Elizabeth, inspired by the Holy Spirit, exclaim: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb."[23]

The idea of Mary being "full of grace," or being the "seat of divine graces" is a near-UNIVERSAL praise given to Mary by the Fathers. HOWEVER, we all understand that these are poetic and figurative terms. It's absurd to think that this is supposed to have a literal meaning. If it was taken literally, then it would mean that Mary had the Grace of the priesthood, which the Church has never taught. You yourself would understand the dramatically effusive praises of the Eastern Church in poetic, not literal terms. I think it would be unChristian (i.e., violates a lot of moral precepts taught us by our Lord) to assume the Latin Church, or the Catholic Church as a whole, would not likewise understand it in such a manner, if the only purpose is to disparage the Catholic Church.

Somehow I recall him being Ukrainian. That's would be Greek to him, unless he has studied Greek. ...Then why does St. Luke say ἐπελεύσεται...ἐπισκιάσει, in the future "will come on you....will overshadow you?" Much is made over the tense of κεχαριτωμένη "full of grace,"

I have studied a little Greek. "Chaire, kecharitomene!" Would probably be best translated as: "Rejoice, you who are fully graced!" Kecharitomene is a perfect past participle, which refers to a past action that has effects continuing to the present.

OH! I didn't know that "infallible" is a merely literary term meaning "you can quote it." Your arguments are unbelievably hilarious sometimes.

Quote

I guess that is how in your own mind your own teaching of the IC involving only the Theotokos' soul passes muster.

Yeah, this proves my point. I gave you Pope Alexander's Encyclical authoritatively asserting that the teaching of the IC refers to her soul, which totally blows away your misinformed and contrary views. But, typically, you simply evade it, and then repeat your claim here. You're just validating the tactic I pointed out in your method earlier (the 8-point one that ends with "repeat step #1).

Quote

Quote

Unless you or anyone else has anything actually new to offer (that has not already been addressed and/or refuted),

Or ignored, like Kolbe and Miravalle.

I ALREADY said that if I have time, I will address them later in the week. Why are you saying I am ignoring them. Your quotes from them are extensively long, and I simply don't have the time right now. Is this another one of your typically demagogic bad apologetic tactics?

Quote

Quote

then I think we can all agree that, even if you disagree with the teaching of the IC, it is nevertheless NOT a heresy

As the Patriarchs wrote in 1894:...

AWESOME! Not a single statement calling Catholic teachings or practices heresies. Thank you! Though I notice that they do consider certain practices and theologoumena as points worthy of division. Well, I guess that puts all hope of unity with the Catholic AND Oriental Orthodox Churches (I mean, you don't seriously think the Coptic or Syriac Orthodox Churches are going to push the Armenians out of communion in order to appease the Eastern Orthodox who can't bear to be in communion with a Church that uses unleavened bread, do you?) out the door. The fact that you would quote this as an authority for yourself shows me where you are coming from. I'm glad, at least, you have shown your true colors. You really are not interested in understanding, but rather division. I'll be more wary of this in my discussions with you from now on.

Quote

Quote

that can be used as a cause for separation (which has ever been my only point in this thread).

And we have 20 pages disproving it.

Or 20 pages of vain repetitions of points that have already been refuted by the Catholic side.

Quote

Sorry, can't join you in the "union" shuffle. I have to look differences in the face rather than overlook them when they pertain to the Faith. I join the Patriarchs (and the Fathers) in that:

There's a difference between overlooking them, and understanding them. I already know where you are coming from given your appeal to that statement from 1894. I see now that your arguments are not really meant to arrive at understanding, but are really and truly only polemic in nature.

So, as of now, I will stop all discussion with you. I really don't want to waste my time with anyone who does not come to the table in a spirit of understanding (or at least trying to understand).

I think we can all agree that, even if you disagree with the teaching of the IC, it is nevertheless NOT a heresy

It IS a heresy to say that the Mother of God was conceived in a spiritual state or condition any different to any other human being.

And I don't think you are prepared to achieve her parity with us by saying that every human is immaculately conceived as She was?!

It's heresy, my friend.

I wasn't aware you had the authority to proclaim something a heresy. Are you claiming infallibility?

Like the Pope, when I express the authentic mind of the Church I am infallible. I think you have mentioned that yourself on a few occasions.

There are other EO here who believe it to be a legitimate theolgoumenon. So what you express cannot possibly be "the mind of your Church" as a whole.

just the thinking part.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

So she was good enough for Christ but not the Holy Spirit before her baptism?

The sayings of the prophets are now being fulfilled: the holy mountain is planted in the womb, the divine ladder is set up, the throne of the great king is ready, the God-inspired city is being adorned. The Unburnable bush is beginning to bud forth, and the treasure house of grace is overflowing. It is spreading over the rivers of unfruitfulness of the God-wise Anne whom we glorify in faith. (3rd Stichon of Vespers for the Conception of the Theotokos by St. Anne)

Very nice, and lovely.

Someone was going to post the full office of this Feast, but I haven't seen it (I've seen it in the Melkite service book, the one that drops St. Gregory Palamas from the Triodion).

So, if we compare the texts from the Conception of St. Anne, how would they differ from those of the Annuciation? The Birth of the Thetokos? The Entry of the Theotokos into the Temple? (the latter one especially, as why would that be important if she was already prepared at her conception?).

No stain of IC here.

They wouldn't. They all speak of her as All Holy/Panagia and All Pure/Immaculate/Akeratos. Why is Christ's Nativity or Meeting in the Temple important when he was incarnated at the Annunciation?

I think we can all agree that, even if you disagree with the teaching of the IC, it is nevertheless NOT a heresy

It IS a heresy to say that the Mother of God was conceived in a spiritual state or condition any different to any other human being.

And I don't think you are prepared to achieve her parity with us by saying that every human is immaculately conceived as She was?!

It's heresy, my friend.

I wasn't aware you had the authority to proclaim something a heresy. Are you claiming infallibility?

Like the Pope, when I express the authentic mind of the Church I am infallible. I think you have mentioned that yourself on a few occasions.

There are other EO here who believe it to be a legitimate theolgoumenon.

Are there really?

Are they willing to deny that the Mother of God was conceived in the same state as any other human?

No, it's not that they are willing to deny that. It's that they probably understand that the dogma of the IC does not necessarily lead to that conclusion - i.e., that the IC somehow deprives Mary of her basic human nature. And by this belief, they would only be trying to maintain continuity with the many Eastern Fathers before the 19th century who believed and taught that Mary was formed or created without any stain. Obviously, these Fathers did not believe your modern argument that the IC somehow means Mary did not fully have a human nature that Christ inherited from her.

But please consider this. There are those who believe that Mary received the Graces, that Catholics claim she received from the first moment of her existence, at the Annunciation. In other words, whatever change in Mary was wrought by God at her Conception was actually brought about instead at the Annunciation. In EITHER case, according to your misunderstanding of what the IC does for Mary, DOES THIS NOT MEAN THAT MARY DID NOT HAVE A HUMAN NATURE AT THE MOMENT SHE CONCEIVED CHRIST? In fact, it does not matter when you or any other Orthodox believes Mary received these Graces (after her conception and before birth, at her birth, at the Annunciation). If we take your MISunderstanding to its logical conclusion, then no matter WHEN Mary received these Graces, she would still, at the moment of Christ's conception, not have the human nature you claim disappears just because these Graces were received by Mary.

Since, according to the IC, she was created full of the graces of sinlessness since the first moment of her existence, when did she have the time to exercise that free-will?

She remained subject to the laws of nature just as her Son voluntarily subjected himself to them for our sake.

How does being free of sin interfere with free will? Adam and Eve were free of sin before the fall and it did not interfere with theirs.

This is one of those issues addressed fully much earlier in this thread. Brother Isa did not have a response back then. He will not have a response now, though perhaps, typical of his tactic, he will repeat the claim in the future.

No, it's not that they are willing to deny that. It's that they probably understand that the dogma of the IC does not necessarily lead to that conclusion - i.e., that the IC somehow deprives Mary of her basic human nature.

I made no mention of the IC depriving the Mother of God of her basic human nature.

I said that she and the rest of humankind are all conceived in the same state.

If she was immaculately conceived then we are immaculately conceived.

If we are not immaculately conceived then she is not immaculately conceived.

This is one of those issues addressed fully much earlier in this thread. Brother Isa did not have a response back then. He will not have a response now, though perhaps, typical of his tactic, he will repeat the claim in the future.

Way back then did you not promise to present us with proof from Saint Gregory Palamas that he believed in the Immaculate Conception. You never did produce it, you know. Any chance...?

No, it's not that they are willing to deny that. It's that they probably understand that the dogma of the IC does not necessarily lead to that conclusion - i.e., that the IC somehow deprives Mary of her basic human nature.

I made no mention of the IC depriving the Mother of God of her basic human nature.

I said that she and the rest of humankind are all conceived in the same state.

If she was immaculately conceived then we are immaculately conceived.

If we are not immaculately conceived then she is not immaculately conceived.

I believe the Theotokos was indwelt by the Holy Spirit from the moment of her conception, and that no other human has been given this gift. Call me heretic if you like, but I don't think you have the support of the Fathers in doing so, only modern polemicists.

I do not believe it is necessary to believe this and think it unfortunate that the Latin Church raised this to the level of dogma, constructing another obstacle to unity with the Orthodox.

No, it's not that they are willing to deny that. It's that they probably understand that the dogma of the IC does not necessarily lead to that conclusion - i.e., that the IC somehow deprives Mary of her basic human nature.

I made no mention of the IC depriving the Mother of God of her basic human nature.

I said that she and the rest of humankind are all conceived in the same state.

If she was immaculately conceived then we are immaculately conceived.

If we are not immaculately conceived then she is not immaculately conceived.

I believe the Theotokos was indwelt by the Holy Spirit from the moment of her conception, and that no other human has been given this gift. Call me heretic if you like, but I don't think you have the support of the Fathers in doing so, only modern polemicists.

Since it is a modern dogma, a novelty of these latter days, the polemics refuting it would of course be modern. The Fathers never knew of such a thing.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

This is one of those issues addressed fully much earlier in this thread. Brother Isa did not have a response back then. He will not have a response now, though perhaps, typical of his tactic, he will repeat the claim in the future.

Way back then did you not promise to present us with proof from Saint Gregory Palamas that he believed in the Immaculate Conception. You never did produce it, you know. Any chance...?

I actually did, but you might have missed it (I actually found the text of the sermon and presented it here, remember?). IIRC, one of the main points was St. Palamas' statement that Mary's NATURE was unsullied even since her conception by St. Anne (he even says that holiness reached its perfection in Sts. Hannah and Eliakim for the very purpose of conceiving Mary). That is a great difference from merely saying that Mary never sinned. St. Palamas stated that her VERY NATURE was NEVER blemished in any way (i.e., UNsullied). But regardless of St. Palamas, no one has addressed any of the other quotes since the fifth century from EASTERN Fathers that explicitly assert that Mary was formed or created without stain.

BTW, I made an important addition/revision to my prior post to you. It brings up a very important matter I would ask that you consider, so please read it. Thanks.